There are 24182 comments on the
Psychology Today
story from Apr 25, 2012, titled Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038.
In it, Psychology Today reports that:

My blog posts on religion have attracted a lot of controversy. Religious people are annoyed by my claim that belief in God will go the way of horse transportation, and for much the same reason, specifically an improved standard of living.

<quoted text>You forgot something:It seems that most atheists are so narcissistic that they would have a very difficult time believing in anything greater than themselves. They rely a lot on intellect, which is definitely a less risky approach to life. To see the beauty of a sunset, or the miracle of a child being born, or the amazing transformation when one experiences unconditional love, and to still believe that life begins and ends with only human beings and no divinity seems utterly ridiculous. Most atheists seem to live on intellectual high ground that makes them appear to be superior to those of us who dare to have some belief system other than science. It seems that they get their kicks out of belittling those who have faith in God. To tout that faith and logic cannot coexist is short sighted. Basing your life only on hard facts and evidence leaves out a whole other dimension to life which includes intuition, spirituality, and the energy that exists between all living things. The unbelief of an atheist doesn't prove anything about the existence of God, it just proves the small mindedness of humans.

We believe in stars. Well, of course we can see those, test them, verify that they exist. But we do believe they exist, and they are far greater than anything on Earth. Some are so massive, they're billions of times larger than the Earth.

<quoted text>Whether I choose to believe in a living God or not is my choice not yours. Get your foul ass on up out my face, you fucking arrogant bitch. I ain't the one. I can respect your differing opinions of what is real or not real, but I have had enough of YOU. As an individual. You spew hate from your lips like spittle dripping from the tongue. You reek of negativity and hate. I have NO time for such bullshit. Shoo shoo and stuff already.

Your post also reeks of negativity and hate. How do you justify such hypocrisy?

Replying to my post page 556:<quoted text>Pat Condell's negative comment on Dutch law-courts (not necessarily just that one ruling) apparently refers to Geert Wilders...http://dotsub.com/view/fdb12aea-4724-4190-b1f...Quote Pat C:The truth is sometimes offensive. There is no doubt about that.The truth is never offensive. The way of expressing or communicating it can be. This is the difference between my approach and Pat's. He does go on and tends make people feel personally under attack instead of just their ideals, ideas, principles, beliefs or actions.From Wiki:On 23 June 2011, Wilders was acquitted of all charges, with Judge Marcel van Oosten noting that his statements, although "gross and denigrating," had not given rise to hatred against Muslims, and as such were "acceptable within the context of public debate." Van Oosten also said, however, that Wilders's statements were on the edge of legal acceptabilityUnquote.

OK. Condell's contempt for faith, religion and the church resonates with with me.

It's not an assumption to ask you what gives you the right to condemn someone else's beliefs. It's a question. Being human does not give you the right. Or else we wouldn't teach the necessity of respect to our children.

We condemn the belief. If you hold it and advocate for it, we are critical of that choice. There is no reason to respect any faith based opinion or religion. But that is never an issue when it is held privately, is it?

Advocacy is more than belief, and anybody that advocates for an idea is at risk of being criticized for it, especially in an anonymous Internet forum.

If you're going to dangle your religious beliefs out there like a piñata before people that you know don't think much of them, you can't expect them to be smacked.

You'll find that most of us have heard more than we want to know already, and aren't too curious to hear about your religion. You said that you were curious about some of ours.

But what I got is that what you actually want is to express yours, and you expect to be respected when you do. Sorry. There are many reasons why that's not possible, such as that the Christian church is not respectable. Nor is promoting it, which you do when you argue for its god or bible.

<quoted text>What happened in Salem was an isolated event. It was not common practice among the religious in all of colonial America. Not too long ago, Americans supported racial persecution and segregation not only privately but politically. Would you consider that an example of the "utter" moral collaspe of a secular society?

Consider the enormous amount of evidence there is to support the notion that there really were witches in Salem:

The governor of Massachusetts (William Phips) was involved. A court was established with the prosecution, defence and judge; all respected pillars of the local communities.

Thorough investigations were carried out and witness were cross-examined. A lot of evidence was gathered and many people confessed. All these proceedings were documented with hundreds of sworn affidavits, interviews and other court documents.

In other words a scale of evidence and testimonies far in excess of anything there is for Jesus.

The Salem Witch Trials were fairly recent and we have the original documents, not copies of copies of copies, made centuries later. We have the sworn and signed eye-witness testimonies from the very people who observed the magical events taking place.

There are even volumes written by witnesses to the trial. The evidence is plentiful.

If you look at what happened in 17th century Salem the same way that you look at what happened in 2000-year old Jerusalem, how can those people not have been witches?

<quoted text>This is an argument - that they didn't do it too much? I don't think Dahmer has people for dinner that often, either.And it was hardly an isolated incident. History is rife with Christian sadism.

You mentioned Salem specifically.

It aint necessarily so wrote:

<quoted text>That was a moral failure - a black eye for America, especially the American South.

I see. When atheists are involved, it's just a moral failure, not an "utter" moral failure. How convenient.

It aint necessarily so wrote:

<quoted text>If you want others to value your church, it has to outperfom the alternatives. Isn't that what you were implying that it could do when you posted that ...

The belief in gods and an afterlife is a common fact of human nature demonstrated across different cultures for centuries. You atheists must demonstrate how denying your human nature has value.

It aint necessarily so wrote:

<quoted text>"the atrocities of godless communist regimes where millions of people were mainmed and killed. The total body count for the ninety years between 1917 and 2007 is approximately 148 million dead at the bloody hands of only fifty-two atheists, three times more than all the human beings killed by war, civil war, and individual crime in the entire twentieth century combined! The historical record of collective atheism is thousands of times worse on an annual basis than Christianitys worst and most infamous bloodbath, the Spanish Inquisition"http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T...Weren't you warning us of the moral turpitude of atheism so that we might value your church more? The slavers were Christians. What use is such a religion if we can do as well or as badly without it?

No. I was demonstrating how atheism has its own history of brutality, violence and genocide.

<quoted text>...The belief in gods and an afterlife is a common fact of human nature demonstrated across different cultures for centuries....

Belief in god(s) is superstition and superstition is declining in the face of science and education. I think the communications and globalisation revolutions through which we are living has accelerated the process.

<quoted text>Consider the enormous amount of evidence there is to support the notion that there really were witches in Salem:The governor of Massachusetts (William Phips) was involved. A court was established with the prosecution, defence and judge; all respected pillars of the local communities.Thorough investigations were carried out and witness were cross-examined. A lot of evidence was gathered and many people confessed. All these proceedings were documented with hundreds of sworn affidavits, interviews and other court documents.In other words a scale of evidence and testimonies far in excess of anything there is for Jesus.The Salem Witch Trials were fairly recent and we have the original documents, not copies of copies of copies, made centuries later. We have the sworn and signed eye-witness testimonies from the very people who observed the magical events taking place.There are even volumes written by witnesses to the trial. The evidence is plentiful.

So was the evidence in Stalin's "show trials" that resulted in the deaths of thousands and not just fourteen women and five men.

<quoted text>Belief in god(s) is superstition and superstition is declining in the face of science and education. I think the communications and globalisation revolutions through which we are living has accelerated the process.Religion = superstitionTheology = mythologyIt's really that simple.

You atheists are a hypocritical lot. You claim that fantasies about superhuman beings are a waste of time. You will thumb your noses at Jesus as superstition, and then log onto World of Warcraft so you can pretend to be an orc for hours.

More trouble?...From:http://www.sfcg.org/programmes/jerusalem/Univ..."Holy sites are places of profound significance and sacred religious attachment whose special character and integrity are to be preserved and protected against all violence and desecration."And"In codifying issues of definitions, access, education, sharing, establishment, reconstruction, memorialisation, expropriation, excavation, research and monitoring of holy sites, this Universal Code on Holy Sites lays out the foundation for a cooperative, concrete implementation plan for preventing and ending conflict in relation to sacred places."Unquote.

How many wars has 'holding things sacred' caused?

Religion, ideology and nationalism are the three main causes of human conflict. Try having a war without them. Religion is the easiest to dispose of and it will end one lot of senseless divisions and fighting 'in the name of God'.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sacredSacred implies "to",(as in 'this is sacred to me'). Places, objects, good books, practices involving halal meats, child mutilation or whatever aren't inherently sacred. Almost nothing is sacred to everyone without exceptions. There is only democracy and consensus about things and issues. In that sense, nothing is sacred.

<quoted text>Belief in god(s) is superstition and superstition is declining in the face of science and education. I think the communications and globalisation revolutions through which we are living has accelerated the process.Religion = superstitionTheology = mythologyIt's really that simple.

You have a very simplistic view about religions, far too rationalist. You think it's only about belief.

The fact is that religions aren't only about beliefs, but about traditions, cultures, mentalities, philosophy, etc... transmitted from generation to generation.

Not every christian, muslim, jew, indu, buddhist, sikh, are 100% behind the dogma, or even understand it, but most feel part of a community that has deep rooted origins. Many people become lapsed christian, non-practising muslim, etc... but still cling to the identity belonging to a faith gives them.

Atheists may be right or not, I don't care, but atheism doesn't bring the same warmth and cohesion belonging to a religion does.

As for "Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038", who do the "religionists" will have to surrender too? LOL

<quoted text>You mentioned Salem specifically.<quoted text>I see. When atheists are involved, it's just a moral failure, not an "utter" moral failure. How convenient.<quoted text>The belief in gods and an afterlife is a common fact of human nature demonstrated across different cultures for centuries. You atheists must demonstrate how denying your human nature has value.<quoted text>No. I was demonstrating how atheism has its own history of brutality, violence and genocide.

No, you were making the fallacy of equivocation, also known as the false cause.

<quoted text>You atheists are a hypocritical lot. You claim that fantasies about superhuman beings are a waste of time. You will thumb your noses at Jesus as superstition, and then log onto World of Warcraft so you can pretend to be an orc for hours.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.